October 21, 2014, 08:11:38 AM

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - docsmith

Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 20
76
How quickly "new" Sigma's reputation went downhill.  The 35A was hailed a great lens and now a lot of forum members seem to be bashing the 50A before they get their hands on a copy.  And now some are already saying that this will have poor autofocus performance.

That's mob mentality for you.

Is there a problem with people discussing a potential flaw?  I think Roger has already summarized what we are seeing....just with the prerelease copies hitting reviewers it may be happening a bit ahead of schedule.

 http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/12/a-bit-of-a7r-sanity

BTW...if the 24A is optically similar to the 50A and 35A from f/1.4 to f/2.8 with reasonable coma, I'll buy one in a heartbeat.

77
Yup. Too bad it won't auto focus good enough to hit the broad side of a galaxy ;D

Must wait for the 85...

When I read back over TDP's review of the S50A and I think to myself on how to obtain the best focus using a tripod, using the AF from the camera with phase detect focusing is not how I'd do it.

With Canon lenses mounted on a Canon camera, I've watched it focus on something and lock, then I press the focus button again, it de-focuses and refocuses again. Why can't it just "know" that it has acquired focus and not move the second time?

Likely, the camera needs more than one data point to optimize/determine focus.  With Phase detect, it could be that OoF is used to define what is in focus.

78
Lenses / Re: Review: Sigma 50mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art Lens
« on: April 22, 2014, 11:23:57 AM »
I've had the 35A for about 2 months now and what Bryan has said about the 50 mm is pretty much what I am finding.  Amazing pictures, even wide open, when it nails the focus.  But there are some AF consistency issues.  I am actually going to try MF for awhile, see how I like that. 

79
Lenses / Re: Canon IS Primes for landscapes?
« on: April 20, 2014, 06:07:09 AM »
...not sure why, but this was a double post....so I removed it.

80
Lenses / Re: Canon IS Primes for landscapes?
« on: April 20, 2014, 06:03:54 AM »
All the data on the internet is an interesting thing.  Stare at it too long and you'll lose perspective and go blind.  It allows you to evaluate subtle differences in lenses beyond the point that you would actually be able to perceive.  Also, much of the available data is based upon a single copy of a lens when it is well established that there is significant copy variation.  I am not saying you don't learn something and that it isn't valuable, but I think you need to evaluate charts with some perspective.

My recommendation is that you start to think in broader terms such as "unacceptable," "acceptable," "good," "very good," "extremely good," and "elite."  Each of these is in the eye of the beholder, but I want to emphasize that evaluating internet data tends to push everyone to the "elite" lenses when many amateurs would be very happy once you get past good (some with acceptable).

I do this because earlier you dismissed what is likely the perfect lens for you.  You say that you want a landscape lens and are on a budget....the EF 25-105 f/4 is absolutely the best bargain "L" lens right now.  But it in your kit when you get your 6D and wait for a deal that pops up and you can get it for $400-$600.  That is a steal.  Practically speaking, the lens is good at f/4 (all this talk of it being "soft" is highly overrated IMO), but it is very good to extremely good from f/5.6-f/8.  It is about as good as any lens once diffraction kits in (which is still very good to extremely good) from f/8-f/16.  It is a great landscape lens for the budget.  Are there better out there, yes, absolutely.  The charts show it and several lenses are even perceivably better.  But it is good enough for most amateurs.

So, my recommendation would be to pick up the EF 24-105 in a kit, or maybe the EF 24-70 f/4 IS in a kit (depending on price) and then pick up a prime such as the Sigma 35A, or one of Canon's trilogy of 24 f/2.8, 28 f/2.8, or 35 f/2 for lower light photography.  If you want astrophotography, that does change things.  The value lens you can get is the Samyang/Rokinon 14 f/2.8 UMC.  You can get by with f/2.8 at 24 mm (I've seen great shots even at f/4), but typically need f/2, by 21 mm or 14 mm, you can increase your shutter speed enough that you can get great shots with f/2.8.

81
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art Gets Reviewed
« on: April 06, 2014, 02:42:41 PM »
Could you post a link to the lenstip.com comparison where you are getting your information? Sight unseen, I would bet the house the Sigma 35 is nowhere close to the Otus 55 in the corners @ f1.4

The Otus:

http://www.lenstip.com/390.4-Lens_review-Carl_Zeiss_Otus_55_mm_f_1.4_ZE_ZF.2_Image_resolution.html

The Sigma 35 Art:

http://www.lenstip.com/359.4-Lens_review-Sigma_A_35_mm_f_1.4_DG_HSM_Image_resolution.html

I would put the Sigma at ~39 lpmm center, 31 lpmm APS-C edge, and 28.5 lpmm FF edge.  The Otus at ~38 lpmm center, 33 lpmm APS-C edge, and ~28 lpmm FF edge. 

Both, very remarkable for f/1.4.

82
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art Gets Reviewed
« on: April 06, 2014, 09:31:33 AM »
We don't have a true side by side test yet.  Based on these results, I still expect the Otus to be sharper, corner to corner at f/1.4.  To get anything close to a side by side test, the Sigma 50 A is similar at f/1.4 to the Sigma 35 A in the SLRgear test.  I actually think the 50 A is a bit better. 

But here is a link to the Otus vs the Sigma 35 A both at f/1.4:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=917&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=829&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

The Otus is clearly sharper corner to corner when compared to the Sigma.

So, yes, the Sigma is blasting Canon and Nikon.  Excellent, IMO, but it likely is going to slide in slightly behind the Otus, which is nothing to sneeze at.  Considering AF, price point, etc....the Sigma will likely end up in more bags than the Otus.

EDIT---just checked Lenstip.com.  They have the Sigma 35 A and Otus 55 very similar at f/1.4. 

If the Otus is better than the Sigma 50 A, I doubt it is by much.  This review is a very good start for the Sigma 50 A. 

83
Landscape / Re: Photography in the Palouse
« on: April 02, 2014, 04:24:55 PM »
August 18-23 is a bit of an odd time.  That is the extreme tail end of harvest.  They might catch a bit of it, but probably not much.  Closer to the hills harvest last, so maybe they are going for where the rolling hills meets the mountains look.  Also, all the college kids will be going back to WSU and UI, so it will be a bit of a zoo.  The Palouse is great to photograph from mid-May through until the second week of August and then again in winter.  You just be just fine June 16-20.  You'll be looking at mid-height spring wheat and full height winter wheat.  Should be very green.  I like mid to late July, you get a mixture of the green and gold (wheat that has already turned).

84
EOS-M / Re: EOS M Lens survey - your favorites, and your most wanted?
« on: March 25, 2014, 08:34:04 AM »
I have the EF-M 18-55 and EF-M 22 f/2.  Both are very nice lenses.  But I use the EF-M 18-55 much more than the 22 f/2. 

As for my "most wanted" a 35 f/1.4 or 50 f/1.4 would be great.  Much bigger than that, I'll be using the adaptor for EF lenses.  I am tempted by the EF-M 11-22, but not yet willing to spend $450 on it, which is almost the same price of my current "M" system.

85
EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: EF 16-35 f/4L, 17-40 f/4L and Others
« on: March 10, 2014, 01:39:10 PM »
But I don't understand why people need a wide angle with F2.8. You don't do portrait with a wide-angle that had "by nature" some distortion.

As has been pointed out, astrophotography, and events, in particular, think of a wedding inside a church.  Wide angles are often used to get the entire "scene," even indoors.  But, understandably so, many often only associate these lenses with UWA, but f/2.8 at 24-35 mm can be very beneficial.  These are not exclusively landscape lenses. 

86
Lenses / Re: Canon 600mm f4 IS II Vs Canon 200-400mm w/1.4x TC
« on: March 07, 2014, 05:07:04 PM »
They are different beasts.  The 600 mm is for when you want all the reach you can get.  Ultimately, you'll be "zooming" by cropping the image in post.  The 200-400 would be for when you need an optical zoom.  Safari has already been mentioned.  But there is a reason they were all over the place in Sochi.  Ice skaters close to your position then the ice skaters move away from you.  You need the optical zoom.  The 600 mm wouldn't work well for that.

I voted 600 mm.  I'd love to own both someday.  But if the two were on a table in front of me and I was only allowed to pick one, I'd pick up the 600 mm.  For what I shoot, I need all the reach I can get.

87
Lenses / Re: 24-70 2.8 L II summary of defects
« on: March 06, 2014, 01:37:09 PM »
I had one lens with a bubble and then different lenses with clicking when I tried to buy this lens last fall.  Since I could only vote once, I voted for the bubble....

In past years, it was common for some of the better glasses to have bubbles. Some glasses with highly desirable optical properties couldn't be heated to a high enough temperate to become fully fluid so that bubbles would naturally escape. At one time bubbles were even viewed by some as a mark of quality. Now glass technology has advanced, and sometimes platinum crucibles are used, so bubbles are no more. One or a few small bubbles will have negligible effect on your images.
 
I think you've been had by a troll.
 
 
So I guess your tally is 0.

I almost kept the lens with the bubble.  It was great in every other way.  The rationale for returning it was pretty simple, 1) shouldn't have a bubble, and 2) I know me, and if I were to ever sell the lens, I'd let any potential buyer know that there was a bubble in the front element, which could kill the resale value.  So, I do not regret my action.  It had nothing to do with trolls.

But I did receive 4 other copies of the lens with the clicking sound, so no, even if you discount the bubble lens, my tally is not 0.  :)

88
EOS Bodies / Re: What Happened to the Photography Industry in 2013?
« on: March 06, 2014, 05:55:07 AM »
What happened? Market saturation.


+1....most people that wanted a camera beyond a P&S bought one in 2009-2012.

But the second point is also well taken....2013 was weak on new releases

89
Canon General / Re: Interview With Canon Executives
« on: March 04, 2014, 11:52:51 AM »
Great interview(s).

Another interesting quote "with 20-30 MP stills cameras being the norm...."  ...the 5DIII is only 22 MP, the 70D is 20 MP.  Is this a hint that an upcoming release is in the upper range of the "20-30 MP?"  Or is this more of an acknowledgement of what other camera manufacturers have produced?   ;)

Fun to speculate.

90
Lenses / Re: 24-70 2.8 L II summary of defects
« on: February 28, 2014, 03:08:18 PM »
I had one lens with a bubble and then different lenses with clicking when I tried to buy this lens last fall.  Since I could only vote once, I voted for the bubble....
Sorry for that, I was trying to find a way to avoid inconsistency (say select both a problem and no problem) but I guess some inconsistency is inevitable. For example someone may had a faulty lens which returned to get another. They could select the specific problem but then the 100% correct would be to select both.

Hey, no problem.  I am actually glad that you did the poll.  It is interesting.  Lensrentals states that all lenses have a "3% out of box" problem rate.  So it will be interesting to see how close the 24-70II gets to the ~97% mark of people not having issues. 

Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 20